‘Extraordinary Attorney Woo’ writer loses case over extra streaming revenue

A poster for the 2022 ENA series "Extraordinary Attorney Woo" / Courtesy of ENA

The latest ruling centering on the scope of TV drama writers' copyrights is triggering mixed responses in the entertainment industry.

A court has ruled that production companies are not required to separately share revenue generated from online streaming platforms with writers, in a legal dispute between the screenwriter of ENA's "Extraordinary Attorney Woo" and its production company.

The writer filed a suit claiming the production company violated the contract by independently selling the drama’s distribution rights to Netflix. While the court sided with the production company, some critics argue that the standard contract for TV writers needs to be revised to better reflect changes in the media landscape.

Changes in media landscape and writers' rights

According to legal sources on April 1, the Seoul High Court’s Civil Division 4 upheld a lower court ruling against the Korea Television Writers Association, which had filed a damages suit against production company AStory.

The association chose not to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the ruling was finalized in February.

The case dates back to 2019, when writer A signed a contract with the production company based on the culture ministry’s standard contract for TV writers, agreeing to a fee of 9 million won per episode.

The drama was later produced and aired in 2022 on ENA and Netflix, achieving major success. Praised for its nuanced portrayal of a protagonist living on the autism spectrum, it recorded viewership ratings as high as 17.5 pecent.

Despite the drama’s success, the writer took issue with the company’s sale of distribution rights to Netflix.

The writer argued that:

– Original contract assumed broadcast on television only.

– Selling rights to Netflix constituted secondary use; therefore, a portion of streaming revenue should be shared.

– When the production company rejected the claim, the Writers Association filed suit on the writer’s behalf.

The production company maintained that the streaming distribution was included in the original contract’s purpose and did not constitute secondary use.

Both the lower and appellate courts ruled in favor of the production company.

Differing views of standard contract

A key basis was the standard contract itself, which defines the writing fee as compensation for the use of the program “for broadcasting and other purposes.”

The court held that:

– The contract’s scope was not limited to traditional broadcasting.

– In the absence of a separate clause, streaming is included in “broadcast and similar purposes.”

The court also cited Article 99(1) of the Copyright Act, which presumes that rights for both broadcasting and transmission are granted unless otherwise specified.

Streaming now considered mainstream media

The court further noted that streaming platforms are already widely established as mainstream media.

Citing a 2020 government survey:

– 52 percent of Koreans used streaming services in 2019

– 95 percent of users watched video content at least once a week

Based on this, the court concluded that it is reasonable to assume streaming distribution was within the intended scope of the contract at the time it was signed.

The court also noted that the writer did not raise objections when the Netflix deal was finalized. It added that the writer had previously proposed producing a Netflix original and had engaged in subsequent contract negotiations.

A precedent-setting ruling — with criticism

The ruling is considered significant as it is the first to address whether streaming distribution constitutes “secondary use” in relation to writers’ copyrights.

However, some critics argue the decision is disappointing for failing to distinguish between “broadcasting” and “transmission.”

Following a 2000 amendment to copyright law, “transmission” was established as a separate right from broadcasting. Critics argue that in the streaming era, writers’ transmission rights should be more actively protected.

Calls to revise standard contracts

There are also growing calls to update the government’s standard contract for writers.

Introduced in 2017 to protect writers’ rights, the contract is now seen as outdated, failing to reflect changes in distribution structures and revenue allocation in the streaming era.

“Allowing market revenue generated by expansion of streaming services to accrue entirely to production companies without compensation runs counter to the purpose of introducing the standard contract, which was meant to protect weaker parties," said Hong Seung-gi, an attorney and chair of the Copyright Protection Review Committee.

This article from the Hankook Ilbo, the sister publication of The Korea Times, is translated by a generative AI system and edited by The Korea Times.